The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588

This page contains verse 2181-2182 of the 8th-century Tattvasangraha (English translation) by Shantarakshita, including the commentary (Panjika) by Kamalashila: dealing with Indian philosophy from a Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspective. The Tattvasangraha (Tattvasamgraha) consists of 3646 Sanskrit verses; this is verse 2181-2182.

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

कुड्यादिप्रतिबन्धोऽपि युज्यते मातरिश्वनः ।
श्रोत्रदेशाभिघातोऽपि तेन तीव्रप्रवृत्तिना ॥ २१८१ ॥
तस्य च क्रमवृत्तित्वात्क्षयिवेगित्वसम्पदः ।
संस्कारक्रमतीव्रत्वमन्दतादिनिमित्तता ॥ २१८२ ॥

kuḍyādipratibandho'pi yujyate mātariśvanaḥ |
śrotradeśābhighāto'pi tena tīvrapravṛttinā || 2181 ||
tasya ca kramavṛttitvātkṣayivegitvasampadaḥ |
saṃskārakramatīvratvamandatādinimittatā || 2182 ||

“The interception caused by obstacles like the wall is quite possible in the case of air. the striking against the tympanum (of which we are at times cognisant) is due to the force of the air-current. and inasmuch as the air proceeds in succession and has a waning intensity and velocity, it becomes the cause of the sequence and varying grades of intensity of the embellishment produced by it.”—(Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 128-130].—(2181-2182)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Question:—Why is there no cognition of Sound when there are obstructions like the intervening wall?

Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka):—[see verses 2181-2182 above]

Though Bound is not subject to interception, yet, inasmuch as the Air and the Wall are both corporeal substances, they are liable to obstruction and interception; and hence the Air does not reach the Ear (when there is an intervening wall); and hence there is no embellishment of the organ; this is the reason why there is no hearing of the intercepted Sound.—The criticism urged therefore is applicable to those for whom there is perception of Sound without its actually reaching the Ear.

To the question—How then is there the diversity of greater and less intensity?—the answer is—‘The striking against, etc, etc.’—The verb ‘yujyate’, ‘is possible’, has to be construed with all these sentences.

Has a waning intensity, etc. etc.’—The construction is—The liability to wane and velocity are both possible in Sound.—Or the compound may be expounded to mean that ‘the velocity is liable to wane’ (Karmadhāraya); or ‘the Sound has a velocity which is liable to wane’ (Bahuvrīhi).

The construction is that—‘On these grounds the varying grades of intensity become quite explicable’.

The sequence in the embellishment also becomes explicable, because of the sequence in the Air -current; high intensity becomes explicable on the ground of the Air having velocity; and low intensity becomes explicable, as being due to the waving character of the velocity.

The term ‘ādi’ is meant to include other variations in the Sound.—(2181-2182)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: